Water supply

Difference Engine: From torrent to trickle

THREE-QUARTERS of the precipitation in California falls in the northern part of the state, much of it as snow in the Sierra Nevada mountains during winter. Three-quarters of the water consumption—for agricultural, industrial and domestic purposes—is in the central and southern parts. Over the past century, the Californian economy—indeed, the state’s very existence—has depended crucially on getting water from the one place to the other. Feats of engineering for transporting it over hundreds of miles, across mountain ranges and deserts, have become an essential part of the Californian narrative.

Without aqueducts, tunnels, pipelines and pumping stations to carry the water south, there would be no Central Valley to put fresh food on the tables of America; no urban sprawl with its freeways and factories, office parks, shopping malls and sub-divisions that characterise southern California and have made it one of the ten economic powerhouses of the world. Without adequate water from the Sierras, even Silicon Valley could have been merely a pipe-dream in the mind of Frederick Terman, Stanford University’s one-time dean of engineering, and the valley's spiritual father. Even today, chip-making remains a heavy user of freshwater.

The hub of California’s water system is a huge estuary east of San Francisco Bay, where freshwater from two of the state’s largest rivers—the Sacramento and the San Joaquin—meets tidal saltwater flowing in from the Pacific. The 350,000 acres (140,000 hectares) of wetlands comprise sloughs and winding channels, with 50-odd leveed island tracts in their midst.

Exploitation and oxidation of the tracts’ peaty soils have caused the drained land to sink by as much as 30 feet (nine metres) below sea-level in some places. Only through continual pumping of the water-table has the threat of inundation been kept largely at bay. With 1,100 miles (1,800 km) of the delta’s lightly compacted levees in constant need of repair, it could take only one big earthquake to cause flooding on a scale not seen since Hurricane Katrina devastated the low-lying wards of New Orleans.

Local interests label all talk of levee failure as scaremongering. There have been numerous major earthquakes over the years, they argue, but no catastrophic collapse of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta’s defences. They point to seismic testing done on Sherman Island in 2011 that failed to breach a levee and precipitate a flood. Only 100 or so of the delta's levees have failed since the 1890s.

All true. But the past is no guide. The biggest difference today is climate change, which is already affecting the physical and ecological structure of the delta. Freshwater runoff from precipitation and melted snow is now expected earlier in the season than ever, and in more sporadic and unpredictable quantities than before.

Meanwhile, the projected rise in the sea-level not only threatens the levees directly, but is likely to push saltwater further into the delta and affect the quality of the water for agriculture and drinking. In a report commissioned by the federal government last year, the National Research Council (congress’s official advisor on scientific matters) noted that “the instability of levees and potential of one levee failure to affect others are liable to be major issues for achieving any measure of water-supply reliability or ecosystem rehabilitation.”

Normally, by regulating the flow of freshwater with upstream dams and diversions, saltwater from San Francisco Bay can be prevented from intruding too far into the delta. Any levee failure, however, would allow saltwater to surge inland, rendering the freshwater supply unfit for irrigation or consumption. During one such seawater surge, salinity levels at the intake of a pumping station reached 440 parts per million (ppm), well above the Californian standard for drinking water of 250 ppm.

Though less than 20% of the delta’s freshwater is exported south, with the rest being used locally or escaping to the sea, any failure of the levee system would have a big impact on Californian agriculture. At present, farmers in the Central Valley consume over 80% of the water pumped south. Once that was more than enough for their needs. Indeed, surpluses were frequently sold to cities further south.

Increasingly, though, farmers are using all the water the irrigation systems can deliver. One reason is the different crops they are planting. For instance, corporate growers have begun to plant almond and pistachio trees instead of fruit and vegetables. Such trees are exceptionally thirsty and, once planted, create a permanent demand for even more water.

“Are thirsty almonds the best crop for a semi-arid region with lots of competing demands?” the Los Angeles Times asked recently (September 24th 2013). Of course, not. They are planted because they are hugely profitable and growers have privileged access to plenty of cheap water—at least for the time being.

Yet another difference today compared with the past is the mounting concern, at political as well as popular levels, for the delta’s unique ecosystem, following decades of despoliation and neglect. Twenty of the habitat’s 500 or so species of wildlife are classed as endangered. Mandates to protect the smelt and salmon migrating through the delta have imposed limits on the amount of water that can be extracted from the region.

Environmentalists blame pumping by the state and federal water authorities for the ecosystem’s deterioration. They are right, to some extent. If truth be told, though, agricultural and urban runoff from the delta region’s 515,000-strong community has contributed significantly to the damage.

Through neglect, exploitation, climate change and burgeoning demand from a growing population, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta has become one of the most degraded estuaries in America, with nowhere near enough water to provide a reliable supply while simultaneously preserving and rehabilitating the ecosystem.

What is to be done? The National Research Council noted that, while water scarcity in the delta will become increasingly severe, “failure to acknowledge this problem, and craft plans and policies that address water scarcity for all needs, has made delta water management more difficult than is necessary.” Its ho-hum recommendation was that California should review its water planning and management practices, devoting special attention to the scarcity problem, while taking into consideration the needs of all parties. The state government has now embarked on such a review.

In reality, however, the problem has been not so much a failure to review the conflicting issues raised by the deterioration of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. If anything, there have been too many proposals and policies, from too many competing agencies, all with vested interests and solutions of their own for dealing with the problem.

The Bay-Delta Conservation Plan is the latest in a long line of engineering fixes proposed by the California Department of Water Resources and the Metropolitan Water District, among others. This massive undertaking includes boring a pair of 30-mile tunnels to funnel water from the Sacramento River upstream of the delta to an existing pumping station downstream of the delta (previous plans, in the 1960s and 1980s, proposed canals that skirted the delta). From its downstream discharge, the water would feed into the California Aqueduct that serves the Central Valley and southern California. Construction would be paid for by growers, home-owners and other users through a surcharge on their water bills.

There is no question that moving the water intakes upstream from their present downstream locations would do much to improve the quality of the water being pumped south. As an added benefit, modern filtering systems at the intakes would help save the delta smelt and salmon fry from being sucked in and mulched. The tunnels would also reduce the risk of the water supply to farmers in the Central Valley and users elsewhere being interrupted by earthquakes and storm surges breaching levees in the delta.

To sell the scheme to a sceptical public, the authorities have garbed it in green, with an associated programme aimed at regenerating 150,000 acres of wetlands and marshes. The rehabilitation part of the plan would be paid for by a proposed $11 billion bond issue placed on next year's ballot. Californian voters generally view conservation measures more favourably than construction projects—especially since approving a $9 billion bond issue for a high-speed train project, only to see its cost soar to $68 billion before laying even a single piece of track.

But despite all its careful packaging, the present Bay-Delta Conservation Plan does little to address the central issue plaguing California’s water supply—namely, that there is simply not enough of the stuff to go round. Siphoning off more than 10% of the Sacramento River upstream of the delta means there is that much less to flow through the delta itself.

The fact is, all the state's water users have to become more abstemious. Californian households have made huge strides as it is, through conservation and recycling. Presumably, they will be required to do more. In Babbage’s neck of the woods, there are financial incentives for digging up the lawn and sprinkler system and replacing it with artificial turf.

The most profligate users, however, remain the farmers. Some serious thought has to be given to the kind of crops that should be grown in the Central Valley’s semi-arid conditions. And the only way to do that is to ensure farmers pay the full cost of the water they consume.

Even if California's households stopped using water entirely, it would make very little difference because the majority of water is used for agriculture, and then a smaller percentage is used for industrial purposes. Specifically, 62% of all water usage is for agriculture, 7% is used for indoor and outdoor residential purposes, and the balance is for environmental and industrial use. Clearly we need to get serious about drip irrigation and ensuring that water-intensive crops are minimized. Taking shorter showers and reducing the time your sprinkler system operates won't make any difference at all.

Take a trip along the Hwy 5 and you can hardly escape the vast farmland, irrigation waterways, and the grudge against politicians. Californian farmers are very much far right, yet heavily relies on subsidies, cheap (Mexican) labor, and infrastructure. Talking out complaining handouts while being the biggest receiver of such.

Non-controversial??? California's long-standing "discussions" about water allocation are referred to as "water wars" for a reason. And any attempt to actually charge market rates for water, especially for agriculture, would result in hysteria which would make the Tea Party ravings about the ACA seem like a miracle of togetherness and likemindedness.
.
However much we need to do it (and we do), making it happen is going to be far harder than you seem to realize. In fact, even after a couple of major disasters it is not going to be easy. That's "major disasters" as in hundreds of thousands (preferably millions) dying in Los Angeles because the water ran out and they didn't get what they were expecting. Anything less, and the political will just won't be there.

There may not be a shortage of water per se. But there definitely is a shortage of potable water. Which only changes when it becomes possible to perform massive desalinization. (And then only for coastal areas like Southern California. The Great Plains don't even have that relief to look towards.)

I feel like this is an ideal, non-controversial opportunity to gain revenue by introducing property rights into the system by auctioning off an annual water quota. If this article is correct, currently the only management is to maintain flow and water quality - hardly a way to regulate a communal resource that has profitable use. As CA-Oxonian says below, the real costs should fall on the farmers planting almonds and pistachios, not municipal users.

Political money has changed a lot of geographical definitions over the years, to the point that "The Delta" now refers to a gigantically swollen area that really is not part of the actual San Joaquin Delta, nor of the SJ's watershed.

The "Central Valley" itself has plenty of its own water for farming, the problem is that it's pumped into the Kern Basin--to irrigate that manmade desert; while the former Lake Kern would overflow into the San Joaquin Valley in very wet years, it is really not part of it. The lake is nothing more than a drainage pond for agricultural runoff now, having been dried-up by overfarming 100 years ago.

"The Delta" really means The San Joaquin Delta, where it joins the Sacramento River. The Sacramento River flows around the Northern Fringe of the SJ Delta and doesn't really have it's own delta; it just flows into Suisun Bay.

Water from the Sacramento forms a "wipe" at the southern tip of Sherman Island, where the bulk of SJ water, including the waters of the various rivers and creeks that are it's tributaries, flows into the Sacramento. This "wipe" prevents salt water from flowing into the SJ Delta during high tides and/or the pumps near Byron, to the south, are running--which reverses the SJ River's flow.

This "wipe" water from the Sacramento River is the water that the authorities want to send south, providing less "wipe" to keep the SJ Delta from going brackish.

Back in the late 90s, Big-Ag financed college professors began to say that the SJ Delta is historically brackish, hearkening back two hundred thousand years, before it became fresh water and stayed that way. This is part of the eventual goal to strip the Sacramento River's entire protective wipe effect from the SJ Delta, allowing the latter to eventually go completely brackish.

The farmland in the Sacramento River Valley, where the water actually is, lies mostly fallow or used to grow hay--unless it has been re-used for cheap McHousing tracts. If they would farm the fine land where the water already is, instead of shipping it south to irrigate deserts, there would be plenty for the farmers, homeowners, and Salmon. But Big-Ag doesn't own most of that land, so their money goes toward making deserts bloom.

There is never a shortage of water, always a shortage of cheap water. Failure mode analysis of projects should bear in mind that gravity always wins. Gravity never has an outage, the price is fixed, and the service is delivered 24/7 guaranteed.

"If it keeps on rainin, levees goin to break,
If it keeps on rainin, levees goin to break,
When the levee breaks Ill have no place to stay.
Mean old levee taught me to weep and moan,
Lord, mean old levee taught me to weep and moan,
Got what it takes to make a mountain man leave his home........."

A splendid opportunity to work the title of a Led Zeppelin tune into a title missed.

But again, they choose the crops based on an economic equation that involves them getting cheap water. If they were forced to pay market rates, I think maximizing their profit would lead farmers to plant different, less water intensive crops.

I'm pretty sure most Californians are already aware of this stuff; and PID-controlled drip irrigation is already seriously used in most places, even the places with abundant water--because it allows the farmers more water to sell.

The Sac Valley farmers (where the water is) see that they can make more money selling their water to the BigAg desert farmers than they can from growing crops. BigAg already uses the water they get very efficiently; they just want more of it.

The California Central Valley is a powerful model for how the rest of the continent, and much of the world, could advance world prosperity. Universal irrigation is something we know how to arrange. Give up the idea that innovation will be centered on the Internet, where a new 'idea' is likely to be, "Gee, let's sell teddy bears, or kitty cats on the Internet." Innovation is needed in addressing how to make big things work.

No, give up Solar Challenge which is Science Fair warmed over, again and again. No attempt to advance to real vehicles is in the cards there. Electric cars and new batteries are useful tools for a lot of things; but they have very little to do with global warming, even if they work out a way to make them at prices that make the products meaningful.

Yes, there is a constructive action on global warming which is in turning vast areas of under-used land into productive, CO2 capturing vegetation, including standing forests. And water distribution is the key to this.

It is strange that Americans ended up growing so much of their food in a desert so far away from markets east of the Mississippi. What is the comparative advantage of farming there? Are there perhaps fewer bugs and thus less need for pesticides?

Market rates are one thing; the quota allocation system is another entirely, and what's really at fault. I suppose you're right, though, I should probably shut my trap given that my experience with Californian water politics consisted of asking my mommy why we didn't water our lawn one year in the '90s and my neighbors blaming it on the "dirty Mexicans."

Subsidies drive California ag choices. Current politics are corporationally driven. Lobbyists abound. Greenwashed PR abounds.
Wildlife don't have money, and wildife orgs have much too little to garner the power needed to force decisions in favor of wildlife. Even using the courts to force enforcement is not winning the game of taking as much as possible for as little as possible.
CA is in the grips of corporate and stockholder choices. They are wringing as much money from the government as they can, and claiming to be conservative.
It's capitalism, and money moves from profit center to profit center WAY faster than crops grow, or canals are built.